Video: The "Dr. Who" theme, as sung by eight floppy drives

Read the rest of this post...

California moves forward on GM food labeling

Attempts to provide clear and honest labeling have failed in many states and with the federal government, but California is always going to be different. The state is large enough to have a national impact if it succeeds so this will be an issue to follow. In a country where so many politicians love to brag about American's having so many consumer choices, it should be an easy win.

If it weren't for the high cost of political campaigns, maybe it would be an easier win. Unfortunately that's not the case so the anti-consumer choice campaign has many deep pockets supporting the un-American campaign.

Thanks to a highly successful petition campaign, California voters will be able to choose whether or not to clear mark food labels so consumers know what they are eating. How is that anything but fair for everyone? Bloomberg:

A petition was signed by 971,126 people, 75 percent more than the minimum needed for a statewide vote concurrent with the Nov. 6 general election, the Oakland-based California Right to Know campaign said today in a statement. State certification of the signatures followed by approval from 50 percent of voters would make the proposal law.

“The right to know is as American as apple pie,” Gary Ruskin, an Oakland-based manager for the campaign, said in an April 30 interview. “Monsanto and some other chemical and agricultural biotech companies are desperate to keep the public in the dark about what is really in their food.”

The California movement is mobilizing consumer unease over modified ingredients, which are found in about 80 percent of processed foods in the U.S. according to the Grocery Manufacturers Association. The campaign is the best chance for biotech labeling in the U.S. after the failure of similar bills in 19 states and the rejection of a petition to the Food and Drug Administration last month, Ruskin said.

Read the rest of this post...

Video: You're so Bain

Read the rest of this post...

Why are the poorest and most violent states in Red states?

If quality of life is important, this recent study says a lot about modern America. Many times people from outside of the northeast like to bash the northeast as being full of violent big cities (and sure, they exist) but the statistics on violence and poverty should be eye opening.

Why is it that the most peaceful states are traditional Blue states and the most violent are Red states? Wouldn't it be nice if people could learn and adjust from studies like this? Click through to see the top three on either side of this very interesting new study.

In the category of economics, absolute poverty rates appear to be correlated with violent conditions. Nine of the 10 most peaceful states were among the 20 with the lowest poverty rates. On the other hand, six of the 10 least peaceful were among the 10 poorest states.

A number of education-related metrics correlate strongly with how peaceful the states are. According to Killelea, “it is not so much the quality of education that matters for peace, but that states keep children in school and off the streets.”

The strongest correlation with peace among the education data is the share of a state’s population with at least a high school diploma. In Texas, which is among the least peaceful states, just over 80 percent have at least a high school diploma -- the country’s lowest rate. Minnesota’s rate of nearly 92 percent is the country’s second highest. That state is also one of the most peaceful.

Read the rest of this post...

Rahm Emanuel says French president-elect François Hollande unpresidential

Already an update from Rahm's spokesperson; see below –GP
________

You know there will be push-back and resistance against the new France, and against the notion that austerity has gone too far — a key message from Sunday's French elections and incumbent conservative President Nicolas Sarkozy's loss to Socialist party head François Hollande.

Where will the push-back come from? What shape will it take?

■ Here's a clue — this, from Rahm Emanuel. AP via Buzzfeed:

Former White House chief of staff and current Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel appeared underwhelmed by Francois Hollande, elected yesterday to lead France, according to a report in the left-wing French newspaper Liberation.

"To me, [Hollande] has more of the head of a prime minister than of a president," Emanuel reportedly said at a reception at the residence of the French Ambassador in Washington. When French diplomats suggested that Hollande could grow into the job, Emanuel reportedly shot back with his "professional" opinion that he couldn't imagine Hollande "grow[ing] in office."

The report is one of a series of ripples of the election of Hollande, a little-known figure here who didn't visit the U.S. during his campaign, over Sarkozy, known domestically as "Sarko the American." ...

The article goes on to talk about "Sarko the American" and how helpful he was to Obama in the Libyan War. (It's not entirely clear when Rahm made his comments.)

■ Which brings up the question of Obama and Hollande.

We know that Obama is a classic Clintonian NeoLiberal — a fan of Robert Rubin from way back, a free-markets maven, a lover of austerity (in the US, "austerity" calls itself of "Simpson-Bowles").

We also know that Rahm is, to quote the linked Liberation article, Obama's former "right arm" ("ex-bras droit d’Obama").

Back to the AP:

In France, Obama was perceived to be supporting Sarkozy; in particular, Liberation writes, the White House, at the request of the Elysee [French presidential residence], allowed Sarkozy's aides to film the French side of a telephone conversation between the presidents. The U.S. Administration has, however, been formally neutral[.]

Is it surrogate time again for Rahm? Is this a signaled preview?

You know there will be efforts to derail the end of austerity in France. What form will they take? The usual method of dealing with a client state is to starve it of funds until their "rulers" are brought to heel — deploy your businessmen, in other words, to make their economy tank until the necessary submission.

France is hardly a client state, but there are still arrows in the quiver of US NeoLiberals and German bankers that can be used as weapons. It will be interesting (and instructive) to see how Obama-Cameron-Merkel work against Hollande and the new France. What method? What means? Stay tuned.

■ Side note — There are interesting early indicators from Hollande regarding the new relationship with the US. This is from another site linked in the AP story, Slate.fr. Hollande in a question-and-answer session (my humble translation):

▪ Les relations avec les Etats-Unis [(About) relations with the US]

«Je veillerai à affirmer l’indépendance de la France sans compliquer la tâche de Barack Obama.»

[I will make sure to affirm the independence of France without complicating the job (task) of Barack Obama.]

▪ Le nucléaire iranien [(About) nuclear Iran]

«Je n’admettrai pas que l’Iran puisse utiliser cette technologie à des fins militaires.»

[I won't admit that Iran can utilize (nuclear) technology for military ends.]

And finally, this fun dig:

▪ [In English] Mister Hollande, do you speak English?

«Yes I speak English, more fluently than the former President. But a French president has to speak French!»

Obviously just the start of a conversation that's going to last a while. (I hope he doesn't have a roving eye ... and use it in New York.)

UPDATE: That was fast. From the original Buzzfeed article, this update. Apparently Emanuel's office has a response:

"What the mayor said was just the opposite," his spokeswoman Sarah Hamilton told BuzzFeed. "What he said was: He doesn't know him, but through the U.S. press coverage, he looks more like a prime minister than a president, but everybody grows into their job."

Yep; just the opposite of what he is reported to have said. Smooth.

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
  Read the rest of this post...

Video: Parents scare kid with life-sized robot dinosaur

I just don't understand these videos. And I've never really understood practical jokes. They're not funny to the person they're done to - they're usually quite mean. And that one finds "mean" funny doesn't strike me as particularly nice. In this video, the parents decide to convince their two year old that something is going to kill him. He knows quite well what a dinosaur is, and that they eat people. So how is this just a cute joke and not, quite literally, parents putting a kid, psychologically at least, into a near death experience?

And before anyone poo-poos my analysis - explain to me how this kid wasn't just convinced that he was about to die. Then explain to me how that doesn't risk scarring the kid? I'm just increasing finding a lot of these videos kind of sick.  Just me?

Read the rest of this post...

Federal judge rules that a Facebook "Like" not protected under 1st Amendment

Too extreme or fair game?  From Yahoo News:

Six people sued Sheriff B. J. Roberts in Hampton, Virginia after he fired them. They say they were fired for supporting his opponent in his bid to be reelected, which would be a violation of their First Amendment rights. One of the six fired, Daniel Ray Carter, "liked" the Facebook page of Roberts' opponent. Roberts claims they were either fired for poor performance, or because supporting his opponent "hindered the harmony and efficiency of the office."

Judge Raymond A. Jackson acknowledged that other cases involving written messages on Facebook protected the speaker with the First Amendment, clicking the "like" button is different and doesn't warrant protection.

NOTE FROM JOHN: I'm sensing a bit off luddite from the judge.

How is the "like" button "NOT speech? Later on in the article the "like" button is compared to a retweet on Twitter. Wrong. A retweet on Twitter doesn't mean you agree with the tweet or the tweeter, or even like either. When you click the "like" button on a Facebook page, it usually indicates that you like the things behind the page. But not always. Sometimes people click "like" in order to be able to follow what the page is doing, writing, saying. But, if someone interprets your "like" as meaning you support the candidate, and if they fire you for it, then yes they were punishing you for political speech. There's no way around it. Read the rest of this post...

RNC attacks Obama on jobs... from an overseas call center in the Philippines

From the AFLCIO:

The Republican National Committee (RNC) used a call center based in the Philippines to hold a media conference attacking President Obama's economic record, the Chicago Sun-Times reported today.The RNC didn't help its image by pointing out that the call was run by Verizon.

CWA Chief of Staff Ron Collins, who began his career in a Maryland-based Verizon call center, summed up RNC's move this way:

It’s hard to imagine anything more hypocritical than the RNC making calls about U.S. unemployment from a Verizon foreign call center.

Oh, I'm confident they'll eventually manage something even more hypocritical. Like defending the Bush record on jobs.  He'd be the guy who got us into this economic disaster in the first place. Read the rest of this post...

Feds release new draft rules for fracking

It's an improvement, but it doesn't go far enough and it's not even in the books yet. This probably means Big Energy will have time to water down the already watered down rules. The proposed new rules include publishing a list of the chemicals being used for the public but there are of course, loopholes.

Interior Secretary Salazar claims that the requirement for using the loopholes are going to be limited but if history tells us anything about this industry and their relationship with governments, the loopholes will be miles wide and abused early and often.

The other problem is that the new rules will not force the fracking companies to publish the chemicals before drilling, so there could be many unpleasant surprises for local communities with their drinking water.

For this new proposal to work, it's going to require some tough minded people to hold Big Energy accountable and there's very little history that suggests we will see that. Even if it passes "as is" the next administration could easily lower the bar for Big Energy and ignore complaints about polluted water sources and side with Big Energy. More on the proposed changes at Nature.com. Read the rest of this post...

Pete Petersen hosts Bill Clinton, Paul Ryan, Simpson, Van Hollen to discuss Social Security "compromise"

The push is on. This will be one of the big battles of the coming year.

First, Nancy Pelosi joined Steny Hoyer in supporting the Simpson-Bowles "Granny's New Diet" deficit proposal. (My thoughts about why she changed her mind are here.)

Now we have news that Pete Peterson (via the Peter G. Peterson Foundation) is hosting a "2012 Summit" to save America's fiscal future. Website here if you need proof.

All you need to know? Pete Peterson lives for one reason only — to kill off Social Security. Every crazed billionaire has a project. This is his. (No exaggeration; check the link. It's an excellent William Greider piece.)

From the "Summit" invite (but click fast; pages that name these names disappear fast at the "Summit" website). The underscoring below is mine:

Media Advisory

PETERSON FOUNDATION TO CONVENE 3RD ANNUAL FISCAL SUMMIT IN WASHINGTON ON MAY 15

Participants to include President Bill Clinton, Speaker of the House John Boehner, Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, Senator Rob Portman, Congressman Paul Ryan, Congressman Chris Van Hollen, and National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform Co-Chair Alan Simpson

NEW YORK (April 18, 2011) — Against the backdrop of the upcoming elections, and with a series of key fiscal deadlines approaching at the end of the year, the Peter G. Peterson Foundation’s 2012 Fiscal Summit: America’s Case for Action will feature the nation’s leading experts and elected officials in discussions about the fiscal, economic, and political crossroads facing the country. ...

This year’s summit will explore opportunities for compromise and establish the urgent need for action on these challenges, as well as highlight the voices of engaged citizens from across the country. The 2012 Fiscal Summit will work to generate the momentum necessary to motivate lawmakers to take action essential to preserving the American Dream.

Fiscal deadlines ... crossroads ... compromise ... motivate lawmakers ... Pete Peterson. Smells like a plan.

Two of the participants in this "Fiscal Summit" are Bill Clinton and Paul Ryan. Have you figured out yet they're batting for the same team — the one that you're not on?



More from Clinton here.

Have you figured out yet there's zero distance between what Clinton wants and what Obama wants, safety-net wise?



Oh, and here's that media invite as a screencap, in case it too disappears from the "Summit" website.

Click to see in a new tab.

I'll close on a positive note. This isn't over; there's an election coming, and that brings leverage and opportunity.

Pelosi may not be toppled, but she can be repeatedly embarrassed in her district. There are senators up as well, not to mention Mr. Smarter-than-you.

We do have some leverage; we just have to use it. I get that that's scary, but this is the safety net, folks.

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
  Read the rest of this post...

Romney falsely claims Bush had better job growth than Obama

As Paul Krugman notes in the NYT, Romney is promising 500,000 jobs a month by returning us to the economic policies of the "wonderful" Bush years.

While everyone, including president Obama, would like to see the current jobs growth numbers be better, the numbers are still looking good compared to the Bush average numbers.  So how is Romney going to do better than Obama by returning us to Bush?

As Business Insider shows, even excluding the disastrous final year, Bush only generated an average of 65,000 jobs per month - compared to 131,000 per month under Obama. If you count everything, the number was an anemic 20,000.

Let Romney and the GOP talk lovingly about the good old days of jobs growth during the Bush years, and then give them the facts. Immediately after, give them a glass of water so they can swallow it all since the truth might get stuck in their throats. Read the rest of this post...

Markets drop following anti-austerity votes in Europe

Europe is finally realizing austerity is a failure, that the last time it "worked" the economic conditions were radically different. Back when it worked (post WWII) the economy was growing, not shrinking. We are not in a high growth phase so austerity only strangles an already weak economy. It's highly destructive. Did voters realize that austerity doesn't work?

Perhaps Europe has had the benefit of watching the US go through this economy so they knew that the bailouts and the easy money post-crisis was all about Wall Street. The bailouts of the banks had to happen but there was no reason whatsoever that we had to bailout the bankers. There's a big difference.

We're four years past the collapse of Bear Stearns and the collapse of the economy yet the only ones who have seen benefits have been the guys - and they were mostly guys - who caused the crisis. Their annual bonuses have come down somewhat but their overall pay is still much more than any other industry and it's not even close. Between the no-strings-attached bailout to the quantitative easing, everything has been about the precious bankers.

Europe has had it pretty easy so far during the crisis (with a few notable exceptions such as Spain, Greece, Ireland) but the next few years stand to be ugly and very economically painful. If the markets today and in the coming months drop because the misbehaving banks and bondholders have their lousy deals renegotiated, so be it.

Brace yourself for plenty of excitement by the right wing Wall Street worshipers who may try to scare Americans into showing how bad the anti-austerity votes are. Then remember just how much the recent Wall Street rise has really impacted your retirement or your life in general. The 1% has done well during the rise but the results are much more limited for the rest of us. Maybe if the 99% saw tangible results to the rise it might matter, but we don't.

Will the new anti-austerity politicians put the bankers back in their place and take control? Probably not. As we all know on the Democratic side, there's always going to be gap between the big promises given during the election cycle and then what happens once in power. In Europe, we can only hope that the victorious politicians don't hire architects of the failed economy as we witnessed in 2008.

The political elite in Europe is not so different from the US and "the left" of 2012 is quite different from "the left" of a few decades ago. Tony Blair ran Labour in the UK and Obama is a Democrat. Neither could ever be confused with an old school socialist or liberal Democrat. In France, François Hollande is a far cry from François Mitterand so it's best to ignore the right wing hyperventilation about socialism taking over. It probably wouldn't hurt to be cautious about believing in radical change as well from the other side.

(Follow me on Twitter at @ChrisInParis) Read the rest of this post...

Greek election forces coalition - parties agree bailout terms must change

The Greek bailouts have not solved anything other than kicking the problems down the road. Even the renegotiated terms were more favorable to the banks than to the people of Greece. The election results in Greece have not confirmed a government, but they have confirmed the national desire to change the terms. A minor restructuring is not likely to make an impact and may only delay the inevitable.

The heads of the two parties projected to earn the most votes in Greece's election have called for changes in the country's international bailout terms, with one seeking to re-negotiate the deal and the other to overturn it.

Updated official projections Sunday show conservative New Democracy head Antonis Samaras leading with 18.9 percent and 108 seats in the 300-member parliament, far less than the 151 needed to form a government. Leftist Syriza head Alexis Tsipras was second with 16.8 percent and 51 seats, while the former majority PASOK was projected third with 13.4 percent and 41 seats.

Samaras called for a coalition government with two aims: for Greece to remain in the euro and to amend the terms of its international bailout. Tsipras called for the overturning of the bailout.

Read the rest of this post...